Gun Control Watch

[nemo]

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/0 ... sales-21s/

“Kroger, the nation’s largest grocery chain, said it will stop selling guns and ammunition to customers who are younger than 21 years old,” money.cnn.com reports. “It’s the third major retailer in two days to impose new age restrictions on sales.” In making the move, the company announced . . .

“In response to the tragic events in Parkland and elsewhere, we’ve taken a hard look at our policies and procedures for firearm sales,” Kroger said in a statement. “Recent events demonstrate the need for additional action on the part of responsible gun retailers.”

The company said that it stopped selling “assault-style rifles” at its Oregon, Washington and Idaho stores several years ago, and that it will no longer accept any special orders for those weapons at its stores in Alaska.

Kroger said it is also in the process of scaling back gun departments at some stores “due to softer demand and changing customer preferences.”

I bet local gun store owners are increasingly happy these days . . .

Sent from my iJunquePhone 8

[rustynuts]

Kroger sells guns and ammo? Since when?

No loss, I don't shop at Kroger anyway.

[WLJ]

Kroger sells guns and ammo? Since when?

No loss, I don't shop at Kroger anyway.

This got lost in my post.

Kroger-Owned Fred Meyer Stores Stops Guns and Ammo Sales to Under 21

’s

[rustynuts]

Kroger sells guns and ammo? Since when?

No loss, I don't shop at Kroger anyway.

This got lost in my post.

Kroger-Owned Fred Meyer Stores Stops Guns and Ammo Sales to Under 21

’s

Okay, that makes more sense. Fred Meyer is like a Mega Walmart.

[WLJ]

Georgia Lawmakers Vote to Strip Delta of $40 Million Tax Break After Company Slammed NRA Members
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavl ... s-n2454588

[Frailer]

IF someone disagreed with Obama on what toppings to put on a pizza all you heard 24/7 afterwards was RACIST! RACIST! RACIST!

He left off the sausage because he’s Muslim.

And Pepperoni

BTW: Never saw anything that made me think he was actually muslim.

I don't believe any thinking person actually believed this; even those who selectively (and deceptively) quoted his autobiography's comments about "standing with the Muslims..." It was just fear, uncertainty, and doubt being spread by the Right--just as the Left is now doing as they try to convince us that Trump is in league with the Russians.

My continuing frustration is with those who actually believe that either the Democratic or Republican Party is "right"--or even that one is more right than the other. They are both *private*, non-governmental organizations who have no interest other than dominance of the American political landscape while lining their own pockets. They have successfully managed to convince the majority of Americans that we have only two choices in any election. Every four years we're told that this election is "the most important in history" and that if we don't vote for their guy/gal all will be lost.

I firmly believe that if just 10% of us would refuse to comply with the myth of two choices both parties would have to start operating differently. Voting isn't about "winning"; it's about making your voice heard. A vote for a "D" or an "R" is as good as an abstention, because it's just a vote for the status quo. And the status quo sucks.

To be honest, I'm not really all that pissed at Trump about all this. Yet. He has a really bad habit of "thinking out loud" and saying whatever his audience at the time wants to hear, and I don't know if anything of significance will fall out. Unless we have another "mass shooting" in the near future I suspect any sort of national-level ban would require congressional action that would get completely derailed in committee, and to be brutally honest raising the firearms purchase age to match that of alcohol doesn't ruffle my feathers too greatly (although I'll concede that maybe it should).

But if we don't wake the hell up, fire Wayne LaPierre, and start making our logical, reasonable, non-emotional, *non-partisan* case to ordinary Americans who are on the fence on gun issues we're going to get totally screwed in the next decade.

All IMHO, of course.

[WLJ]

My continuing frustration is with those who actually believe that either the Democratic or Republican Party is "right"--or even that one is more right than the other. They are both *private*, non-governmental organizations who have no interest other than dominance of the American political landscape while lining their own pockets. They have successfully managed to convince the majority of Americans that we have only two choices in any election. Every four years we're told that this election is "the most important in history" and that if we don't vote for their guy/gal all will be lost.
.

One is a turd sandwich, the other is a turd sandwich with mustard

[jackalo626]

IF someone disagreed with Obama on what toppings to put on a pizza all you heard 24/7 afterwards was RACIST! RACIST! RACIST!

He left off the sausage because he’s Muslim.

And Pepperoni

BTW: Never saw anything that made me think he was actually muslim.

I don't believe any thinking person actually believed this; even those who selectively (and deceptively) quoted his autobiography's comments about "standing with the Muslims..." It was just fear, uncertainty, and doubt being spread by the Right--just as the Left is now doing as they try to convince us that Trump is in league with the Russians.

My continuing frustration is with those who actually believe that either the Democratic or Republican Party is "right"--or even that one is more right than the other. They are both *private*, non-governmental organizations who have no interest other than dominance of the American political landscape while lining their own pockets. They have successfully managed to convince the majority of Americans that we have only two choices in any election. Every four years we're told that this election is "the most important in history" and that if we don't vote for their guy/gal all will be lost.

I firmly believe that if just 10% of us would refuse to comply with the myth of two choices both parties would have to start operating differently. Voting isn't about "winning"; it's about making your voice heard. A vote for a "D" or an "R" is as good as an abstention, because it's just a vote for the status quo. And the status quo sucks.

To be honest, I'm not really all that pissed at Trump about all this. Yet. He has a really bad habit of "thinking out loud" and saying whatever his audience at the time wants to hear, and I don't know if anything of significance will fall out. Unless we have another "mass shooting" in the near future I suspect any sort of national-level ban would require congressional action that would get completely derailed in committee, and to be brutally honest raising the firearms purchase age to match that of alcohol doesn't ruffle my feathers too greatly (although I'll concede that maybe it should).

But if we don't wake the hell up, fire Wayne LaPierre, and start making our logical, reasonable, non-emotional, *non-partisan* case to ordinary Americans who are on the fence on gun issues we're going to get totally screwed in the next decade.

All IMHO, of course.

So your idea is for 10% to vote for a random party and the other 90% of votes are split between the R and the D candidate? Im not sure you understand the math portion of this equation but (spoiler alert) it doesn't turn out in your favor. I have heard this weird scenario spread around before and it doesn't add up.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Toddstang]

Called Rand Paul's office today. The person on the other end of the phone listened to me vent about what Trump said yesterday and after I finished the person said he, himself and Rand Paul feel the same, that Rand will fight not to give one inch and that we have already gave up too much on the 2nd Amendment since it was originally written. He took all my info and said Sen. Paul will get back with me.

[Toddstang]

IF someone disagreed with Obama on what toppings to put on a pizza all you heard 24/7 afterwards was RACIST! RACIST! RACIST!

He left off the sausage because he’s Muslim.

And Pepperoni

BTW: Never saw anything that made me think he was actually muslim.

I don't believe any thinking person actually believed this; even those who selectively (and deceptively) quoted his autobiography's comments about "standing with the Muslims..." It was just fear, uncertainty, and doubt being spread by the Right--just as the Left is now doing as they try to convince us that Trump is in league with the Russians.

My continuing frustration is with those who actually believe that either the Democratic or Republican Party is "right"--or even that one is more right than the other. They are both *private*, non-governmental organizations who have no interest other than dominance of the American political landscape while lining their own pockets. They have successfully managed to convince the majority of Americans that we have only two choices in any election. Every four years we're told that this election is "the most important in history" and that if we don't vote for their guy/gal all will be lost.

I firmly believe that if just 10% of us would refuse to comply with the myth of two choices both parties would have to start operating differently. Voting isn't about "winning"; it's about making your voice heard. A vote for a "D" or an "R" is as good as an abstention, because it's just a vote for the status quo. And the status quo sucks.

To be honest, I'm not really all that pissed at Trump about all this. Yet. He has a really bad habit of "thinking out loud" and saying whatever his audience at the time wants to hear, and I don't know if anything of significance will fall out. Unless we have another "mass shooting" in the near future I suspect any sort of national-level ban would require congressional action that would get completely derailed in committee, and to be brutally honest raising the firearms purchase age to match that of alcohol doesn't ruffle my feathers too greatly (although I'll concede that maybe it should).

But if we don't wake the hell up, fire Wayne LaPierre, and start making our logical, reasonable, non-emotional, *non-partisan* case to ordinary Americans who are on the fence on gun issues we're going to get totally screwed in the next decade.

All IMHO, of course.

So your idea is for 10% to vote for a random party and the other 90% of votes are split between the R and the D candidate? Im not sure you understand the math portion of this equation but (spoiler alert) it doesn't turn out in your favor. I have heard this weird scenario spread around before and it doesn't add up.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

But his voice was heard!
I guess.

[WLJ]

Yeah, I know, the polls also had Hillary winning by 20 points.

Poll: 82% of Dems favor banning all semiautomatic weapons, evenly split on banning all guns
https://hotair.com/archives/2018/03/01/ ... ning-guns/

Also in the link the same poll shows 68% of Ds, 46% of Is, and 41% of Rs think gun buyers should be forced to undergo a “mental examination” before being allowed to complete their purchase.

[Rem700]

But they also believe no voter ID laws, no drug tests for welfare, babies can be killed in the womb because they arent babies yet, gender is fluid, feelings matter more than facts, the list goes on.......

So that kind of kills any credibility in any argument IMO.

[rustynuts]

But they also believe no voter ID laws, no drug tests for welfare, babies can be killed in the womb because they arent babies yet, gender is fluid, feelings matter more than facts, the list goes on.......

So that kind of kills any credibility in any argument IMO.

Not to the politicians.

[Rem700]

But they also believe no voter ID laws, no drug tests for welfare, babies can be killed in the womb because they arent babies yet, gender is fluid, feelings matter more than facts, the list goes on.......

So that kind of kills any credibility in any argument IMO.

Not to the politicians.

Truth

[Niceguy]

.

[Frailer]

IF someone disagreed with Obama on what toppings to put on a pizza all you heard 24/7 afterwards was RACIST! RACIST! RACIST!

He left off the sausage because he’s Muslim.

And Pepperoni

BTW: Never saw anything that made me think he was actually muslim.

I don't believe any thinking person actually believed this; even those who selectively (and deceptively) quoted his autobiography's comments about "standing with the Muslims..." It was just fear, uncertainty, and doubt being spread by the Right--just as the Left is now doing as they try to convince us that Trump is in league with the Russians.

My continuing frustration is with those who actually believe that either the Democratic or Republican Party is "right"--or even that one is more right than the other. They are both *private*, non-governmental organizations who have no interest other than dominance of the American political landscape while lining their own pockets. They have successfully managed to convince the majority of Americans that we have only two choices in any election. Every four years we're told that this election is "the most important in history" and that if we don't vote for their guy/gal all will be lost.

I firmly believe that if just 10% of us would refuse to comply with the myth of two choices both parties would have to start operating differently. Voting isn't about "winning"; it's about making your voice heard. A vote for a "D" or an "R" is as good as an abstention, because it's just a vote for the status quo. And the status quo sucks.

To be honest, I'm not really all that pissed at Trump about all this. Yet. He has a really bad habit of "thinking out loud" and saying whatever his audience at the time wants to hear, and I don't know if anything of significance will fall out. Unless we have another "mass shooting" in the near future I suspect any sort of national-level ban would require congressional action that would get completely derailed in committee, and to be brutally honest raising the firearms purchase age to match that of alcohol doesn't ruffle my feathers too greatly (although I'll concede that maybe it should).

But if we don't wake the hell up, fire Wayne LaPierre, and start making our logical, reasonable, non-emotional, *non-partisan* case to ordinary Americans who are on the fence on gun issues we're going to get totally screwed in the next decade.

All IMHO, of course.

So your idea is for 10% to vote for a random party and the other 90% of votes are split between the R and the D candidate? Im not sure you understand the math portion of this equation but (spoiler alert) it doesn't turn out in your favor. I have heard this weird scenario spread around before and it doesn't add up.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Considering no president elected in the past 50 years has achieved a popular vote margin of 10% or more over his opponent please explain the error of my math. (After re-reading what I wrote so you completely understand the intended goal.)

[jackalo626]

IF someone disagreed with Obama on what toppings to put on a pizza all you heard 24/7 afterwards was RACIST! RACIST! RACIST!

He left off the sausage because he’s Muslim.

And Pepperoni

BTW: Never saw anything that made me think he was actually muslim.

I don't believe any thinking person actually believed this; even those who selectively (and deceptively) quoted his autobiography's comments about "standing with the Muslims..." It was just fear, uncertainty, and doubt being spread by the Right--just as the Left is now doing as they try to convince us that Trump is in league with the Russians.

My continuing frustration is with those who actually believe that either the Democratic or Republican Party is "right"--or even that one is more right than the other. They are both *private*, non-governmental organizations who have no interest other than dominance of the American political landscape while lining their own pockets. They have successfully managed to convince the majority of Americans that we have only two choices in any election. Every four years we're told that this election is "the most important in history" and that if we don't vote for their guy/gal all will be lost.

I firmly believe that if just 10% of us would refuse to comply with the myth of two choices both parties would have to start operating differently. Voting isn't about "winning"; it's about making your voice heard. A vote for a "D" or an "R" is as good as an abstention, because it's just a vote for the status quo. And the status quo sucks.

To be honest, I'm not really all that pissed at Trump about all this. Yet. He has a really bad habit of "thinking out loud" and saying whatever his audience at the time wants to hear, and I don't know if anything of significance will fall out. Unless we have another "mass shooting" in the near future I suspect any sort of national-level ban would require congressional action that would get completely derailed in committee, and to be brutally honest raising the firearms purchase age to match that of alcohol doesn't ruffle my feathers too greatly (although I'll concede that maybe it should).

But if we don't wake the hell up, fire Wayne LaPierre, and start making our logical, reasonable, non-emotional, *non-partisan* case to ordinary Americans who are on the fence on gun issues we're going to get totally screwed in the next decade.

All IMHO, of course.

So your idea is for 10% to vote for a random party and the other 90% of votes are split between the R and the D candidate? Im not sure you understand the math portion of this equation but (spoiler alert) it doesn't turn out in your favor. I have heard this weird scenario spread around before and it doesn't add up.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Considering no president elected in the past 50 years has achieved a popular vote margin of 10% or more over his opponent please explain the error of my math. (After re-reading what I wrote so you completely understand the intended goal.)

If all 10% of your votes went for your person and we divided up the other 90% between 2 other candidates r&d where are you coming up with your 10% changing it? I really want to know. Don't answer questions with a question, that isn't how dialogue works.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[jackalo626]

"Voting isn't about winning" yes why yes it is. Being heard that you are the 10% minority lets the other 90% of voters know you aren't close to mattering in the outcome.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Frailer]

"Voting isn't about winning" yes why yes it is. Being heard that you are the 10% minority lets the other 90% of voters know you aren't close to mattering in the outcome.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

You’re absolutely right. I’m a moron; apologies for wasting your time.

[jackalo626]

"Voting isn't about winning" yes why yes it is. Being heard that you are the 10% minority lets the other 90% of voters know you aren't close to mattering in the outcome.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

You’re absolutely right. I’m a moron; apologies for wasting your time.

Never answered the question....typical frailer.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Frailer]

"Voting isn't about winning" yes why yes it is. Being heard that you are the 10% minority lets the other 90% of voters know you aren't close to mattering in the outcome.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

You’re absolutely right. I’m a moron; apologies for wasting your time.

Never answered the question....typical frailer.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Dude. Why do you even bother?

[jackalo626]

"Voting isn't about winning" yes why yes it is. Being heard that you are the 10% minority lets the other 90% of voters know you aren't close to mattering in the outcome.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

You’re absolutely right. I’m a moron; apologies for wasting your time.

Never answered the question....typical frailer.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Dude. Why do you even bother?

I just dont let dumb things get said without checking it.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Frailer]

"Voting isn't about winning" yes why yes it is. Being heard that you are the 10% minority lets the other 90% of voters know you aren't close to mattering in the outcome.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

You’re absolutely right. I’m a moron; apologies for wasting your time.

Never answered the question....typical frailer.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Dude. Why do you even bother?

I just dont let dumb things get said without checking it.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

You already said you vote to win, so there’s absolutely no point in explaining, as you won’t agree anyway.

But since you’ve made it clear that my statements are dumb, here’s what Barbara Perry, director of presidential studies at the University of Virginia and co-chair of the Presidential Oral History program has to say:

“The very fact that our electoral system is a winner-take-all system discourages third parties, So almost as soon as a splinter group goes off and plans their own platform, one of the major parties, or sometimes both, try to bring those people in. The big parties are like amoebas trying to go around the fringe groups and fold them in...

[Ross]Perot is likely the best modern example of an impactful third-party candidate because his singular focus on a balanced budget forced both Republicans and Democrats to address that issue.
When he got almost 19 percent of the vote, both Republicans and Democrats came together and balanced the budget. The success of his campaign was like a tip from the American people saying, ‘You better pay attention to this. If you don’t pay attention, then something worse is going to happen to you in the next election.’”

It’s not about winning an election. It’s about winning, period.

[jackalo626]

"Voting isn't about winning" yes why yes it is. Being heard that you are the 10% minority lets the other 90% of voters know you aren't close to mattering in the outcome.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

You’re absolutely right. I’m a moron; apologies for wasting your time.

Never answered the question....typical frailer.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Dude. Why do you even bother?

I just dont let dumb things get said without checking it.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

You already said you vote to win, so there’s absolutely no point in explaining, as you won’t agree anyway.

But since you’ve made it clear that my statements are dumb, here’s what Barbara Perry, director of presidential studies at the University of Virginia and co-chair of the Presidential Oral History program has to say:

“The very fact that our electoral system is a winner-take-all system discourages third parties,” she said. “So almost as soon as a splinter group goes off and plans their own platform, one of the major parties, or sometimes both, try to bring those people in. The big parties are like amoebas trying to go around the fringe groups and fold them in...

[Ross]Perot is likely the best modern example of an impactful third-party candidate because his singular focus on a balanced budget forced both Republicans and Democrats to address that issue.
When he got almost 19 percent of the vote, both Republicans and Democrats came together and balanced the budget. The success of his campaign was like a tip from the American people saying, ‘You better pay attention to this. If you don’t pay attention, then something worse is going to happen to you in the next election.’”

It’s not about winning an election. It’s about winning, period.

But thrm addressing it to win just means they don't do it after elected. Lips service is cheap. The person with the non d or r in front of their party doesn't stand a chance at 10% or 30%. Electoral college won't have it either so makimg a ruckus is great feel good potion but they won't make it to office.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Frailer]

"Voting isn't about winning" yes why yes it is. Being heard that you are the 10% minority lets the other 90% of voters know you aren't close to mattering in the outcome.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

You’re absolutely right. I’m a moron; apologies for wasting your time.

Never answered the question....typical frailer.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Dude. Why do you even bother?

I just dont let dumb things get said without checking it.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

You already said you vote to win, so there’s absolutely no point in explaining, as you won’t agree anyway.

But since you’ve made it clear that my statements are dumb, here’s what Barbara Perry, director of presidential studies at the University of Virginia and co-chair of the Presidential Oral History program has to say:

“The very fact that our electoral system is a winner-take-all system discourages third parties,” she said. “So almost as soon as a splinter group goes off and plans their own platform, one of the major parties, or sometimes both, try to bring those people in. The big parties are like amoebas trying to go around the fringe groups and fold them in...

[Ross]Perot is likely the best modern example of an impactful third-party candidate because his singular focus on a balanced budget forced both Republicans and Democrats to address that issue.
When he got almost 19 percent of the vote, both Republicans and Democrats came together and balanced the budget. The success of his campaign was like a tip from the American people saying, ‘You better pay attention to this. If you don’t pay attention, then something worse is going to happen to you in the next election.’”

It’s not about winning an election. It’s about winning, period.

But thrm addressing it to win just means they don't do it after elected. Lips service is cheap. The person with the non d or r in front of their party doesn't stand a chance at 10% or 30%. Electoral college won't have it either so makimg a ruckus is great feel good potion but they won't make it to office.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Do you even read what I write before you respond?

*After* the election—which Perot *lost*—the two parties worked together to adress the primary issue Perot ran on. The Democrats and Republicans did what Perot’s supporters wanted, even though their candidate lost.

This is in opposition to the status quo, where Ds and Rs do nothing but pay lip service. Using the Republicans as an example, they promise to cut spending and slash the size of government, yet every single Republican government in recent history has taken us deeper in debt and grown the government. The Democrats are equally hypocritical. They know they don’t have to keep promises, because the sheep will vote for them next time around, regardless.

Feel free to disagree with me if you want, with my blessing. But I’m not getting into a pissing contest.